Defeaters and Eliminative Argumentation in Assurance 2.0

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15800v1
• Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 22:10:01 GMT
• Title: Defeaters and Eliminative Argumentation in Assurance 2.0
• Authors: Robin Bloomfield, Kate Netkachova, John Rushby,
• Abstract summary: This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0. A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: A traditional assurance case employs a positive argument in which reasoning steps, grounded on evidence and assumptions, sustain a top claim that has external significance. Human judgement is required to check the evidence, the assumptions, and the narrative justifications for the reasoning steps; if all are assessed good, then the top claim can be accepted. A valid concern about this process is that human judgement is fallible and prone to confirmation bias. The best defense against this concern is vigorous and skeptical debate and discussion in the manner of a dialectic or Socratic dialog. There is merit in recording aspects of this discussion for the benefit of subsequent developers and assessors. Defeaters are a means doing this: they express doubts about aspects of the argument and can be developed into subcases that confirm or refute the doubts, and can record them as documentation to assist future consideration. This report describes how defeaters, and multiple levels of defeaters, should be represented and assessed in Assurance 2.0 and its Clarissa/ASCE tool support. These mechanisms also support eliminative argumentation, which is a contrary approach to assurance, favored by some, that uses a negative argument to refute all reasons why the top claim could be false.

Related papers

• Turning Logic Against Itself : Probing Model Defenses Through Contrastive Questions [51.51850981481236]
  We introduce POATE, a novel jailbreak technique that harnesses contrastive reasoning to provoke unethical responses. PoATE crafts semantically opposing intents and integrates them with adversarial templates, steering models toward harmful outputs with remarkable subtlety. To counter this, we propose Intent-Aware CoT and Reverse Thinking CoT, which decompose queries to detect malicious intent and reason in reverse to evaluate and reject harmful responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T15:40:03Z)
• Auditing Counterfire: Evaluating Advanced Counterargument Generation with Evidence and Style [11.243184875465788]
  GPT-3.5 Turbo ranked highest in argument quality with strong paraphrasing and style adherence, particularly in reciprocity' style arguments. The stylistic counter-arguments still fall short of human persuasive standards, where people also preferred reciprocal to evidence-based rebuttals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T14:53:12Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• Conclusion-based Counter-Argument Generation [26.540485804067536]
  In real-world debates, the most common way to counter an argument is to reason against its main point, that is, its conclusion. We propose a multitask approach that jointly learns to generate both the conclusion and the counter of an input argument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T10:49:01Z)
• Fact-Saboteurs: A Taxonomy of Evidence Manipulation Attacks against Fact-Verification Systems [80.3811072650087]
  We show that it is possible to subtly modify claim-salient snippets in the evidence and generate diverse and claim-aligned evidence. The attacks are also robust against post-hoc modifications of the claim. These attacks can have harmful implications on the inspectable and human-in-the-loop usage scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T13:39:24Z)
• Generating Literal and Implied Subquestions to Fact-check Complex Claims [64.81832149826035]
  We focus on decomposing a complex claim into a comprehensive set of yes-no subquestions whose answers influence the veracity of the claim. We present ClaimDecomp, a dataset of decompositions for over 1000 claims. We show that these subquestions can help identify relevant evidence to fact-check the full claim and derive the veracity through their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-14T00:40:57Z)
• Assessing Confidence with Assurance 2.0 [0.0]
  We argue that confidence cannot be reduced to a single attribute or measurement. Positive Perspectives consider the extent to which the evidence and overall argument of the case combine to make a positive statement. Negative Perspectives record doubts and challenges to the case, typically expressed as defeaters. Residual Doubts: the world is uncertain so not all potential defeaters can be resolved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-03T22:10:59Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• LPAttack: A Feasible Annotation Scheme for Capturing Logic Pattern of Attacks in Arguments [33.445994192714956]
  In argumentative discourse, persuasion is often achieved by refuting or attacking others arguments. No existing studies capture complex rhetorical moves in attacks or the presuppositions or value judgements in them. We introduce LPAttack, a novel annotation scheme that captures the common modes and complex rhetorical moves in attacks along with the implicit presuppositions and value judgements in them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-04T14:15:25Z)
• Argument Undermining: Counter-Argument Generation by Attacking Weak Premises [31.463885580010192]
  We explore argument undermining, that is, countering an argument by attacking one of its premises. We propose a pipeline approach that first assesses the premises' strength and then generates a counter-argument targeting the weak ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T08:39:14Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.